• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

What I like with DW is when I am kind of at a loss about what to say, I just go back to square one. Something fantastic, thrilling, threatening, and relevant to the characters happens. So, an ancient huge red dragon appears and demands all their treasure and magic items, or else!
Because of BW's emphasis on negating intent on a failure with reference to player's priorities for their PC, sometimes I have to think a bit.

And occasionally I come up with stuff that, on reflection, wasn't my best GMing ever. We all have our moments of suboptimal performance!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I invite you to illustrate precisely where I lack a set procedure by using my actual play breakdown linked below.

I looked it over. A lot of it is perfectly clear, but there are some areas that I’m not sure what happened. I’ve quoted those below.

Again, I describe the circumstances the party finds themselves in. I rolled for encounters, and none occurred

This is vague. What is the process for rolling for encounters? What are the chances an encounter will happen? What encounters may happen?

So here is the first time we had something uncertain happen thus a skill roll is needed. I was looking for a 10 better on a d20 for complete success. Normally it is a 15+, but the circumstances was advantageous. And this was before I started using 5e advantage and disadvatage. What I would do now is have Adam roll for advantage.

So this was a perception check to notice the encounter from afar. You explain a lot about the timeline and location of this encounter… but not the nature of it. It seems like this is a set encounter, is that correct? Or was it a random encounter?

Did you tell the players what they needed to roll for the perception check or leave that unknown?


In its current form, I established a timeline for the couple’s journey from Woodford. In a normal campaign, the encounter with the couple would only occur if the party happened to camp on the road that particular night.

If they force-marched to Woodford, they might have encountered the couple on the road. If they delayed their journey, they would have found the aftermath of the ruffian attack. I keep a chart of possible outcomes, roll one and roleplay accordingly. If the party approached from a different direction entirely, the couple’s situation wouldn’t come into play until they reached Woodford and heard about the two runaways.

Why do the specifics of this encounter matter so much to you?

The players roleplayed getting up, and then Brendon told me what his character was going to do. I don’t use a formal system like Intent and Task or PbtA moves. Instead, players describe their actions in first- or second-person, and I determine whether the outcome is a success, a failure, or uncertain, if it’s uncertain, I call for a roll. In making that call, I weigh the circumstances, what the player described, and the capabilities of their character.

No real question here, but I think your lack of familiarity with other systems shows. In Pbta, players just narrate what their characters do, too. They don’t announce moves. Some of their actions may trigger a move… but that’s just a label to describe when a roll is taking place.

What happened here is that Adam was positioned down the road on horseback. It looks like part of the transcription was lost, we’re missing the moment when he told me that’s what he was doing. The second campsite was just off the road, so Adam didn’t have to worry about charging through forest terrain. He waited farther out, and due to the horse’s speed, was able to close the distance and reach melee range within a single combat round, which also counted as a surprise round.

That all strikes me as odd… a horse charging that far and still catching the bandits by surprise. And the fact that the woman was being held by one of them would have, if I was a player, made me hesitate to make such a bold move for fear of her safety.

Maybe this is just a result of using this specific system?

In my Deceits of the Russet Lord adventure, dealing with the “star-crossed lovers” is the first branching point where each group's experience begins to diverge. Every group has handled the situation differently. In this case, Brendan, Adam, and Elliot chose to support the couple by creating a subterfuge to keep them together until the group could resolve the situation at the abbey and shrine. This was all handled through first-person roleplaying, with a single skill roll used to resolve the uncertainty of forging a document.

Why not use any social rolls at all? Was there any doubt about the interaction?

What was the skill used to forge the document? How was the DC determined? Was this provided to the players? Did they receive just a single roll or could they have attempted it again? I would think a forgery roll would be allowed only once… but I’m curious if you agree.

By now, it should be apparent that there are significant structural differences between how I run my Living World sandbox campaigns and how other RPGs like Burning Wheel, D&D 5e, or PbtA are typically played.

Well, it’s hard to say for sure… some moments of play seem very similar, though perhaps different mechanics are used. The combat certainly would have played differently in BW or most PbtA games. Seems pretty similar to 5e, especially with dis/advantage mechanics and the same general. Process of d20 plus modifiers to exceed a target, along with initiative and surprise.

While I may use many familiar techniques, my extensive use of first-person roleplaying, combined with a focus on plausibility and world continuity, serves a different purpose: to bring the setting to life in a way that makes it feel visited, not authored.

I don’t know if I agree with that… it seems pretty authored to me. But I also acknowledge this is a one shot, and that likely plays a big part in that.

The requirement of first person declaration is an aesthetic choice. I’m not sure why it seems so important to you… but it’s certainly fine as preferences go. I don’t demand that of players, and when I play, I freely slip from first to third and back. That’s not something I consider all that important… so it’s an interesting difference.

Certainly everything that happened as far as what was transcripted seemed plausible. I’m not sure where the world continuity came into play… is that the importance of the location of the encounter with the bandits and the young lovers?

All in all, it seems like a perfectly fine example of trad style RPGing. I don’t know if it’s the nature of the one-shot or what, but I’m not really getting the living world element from this example.
 


No. Everyone's impression matters.


Because you are saying we are doing X, and we are saying we don't think that is so. I think there has been a miscommunication
Then please

for goodness sake

when I ask for you (generic) to explain

please please please EXPLAIN.

Good examples (albeit mostly not directed to you specific):
Then I don't understand what half or more of these things are saying.

Like I literally don't understand why anyone would use the word "objective" in relation to realism except for this.

Would you be willing to explain what you actually meant by your use of it, then?
And I don't. That's the whole point! I have no idea what "I try to make my world realistic" means.

Because, to reference TVTropes, Reality Is Unrealistic. There are huge, vast, megalithic swathes of reality which people outright reject. Remember that the sounds of horses on cobblestones are almost never actual shoed horses on cobblestones, because people are so used to the clacking coconut-shells sound, and don't have any context for what actual horses sound like trotting around. It is, quite literally, a situation where what is actual reality would be rejected for being "unrealistic"!

So no, this statement says nothing. It might as well say "I try to make my world fnord". I don't know what "realistic" means--and that is what makes it a platitude, not a procedure nor a description. A "procedure" really does mean something closer to an algorithm. They aren't 100% identical, but they're pretty close siblings.
But we aren't talking about someone studying something. We are talking about someone giving--allegedly--"procedures" and "approaches".

Telling someone your ethical procedure is "do what is good, and avoid what is bad" is a platitude. Plain and simple. It communicates absolutely nothing procedural.
All of these hinge on the same thing: "What the DM already knows". How does the DM already know that? This has been, repeatedly, used as a "this isn't and can't be railroading"--but HOW "what the DM already knows" is left almost totally unstated. Like I've gone back through and seen multiple posts which reference this, even reference that the "how" matters...and then never actually say a word about the "how".

You may not have been the one to explicitly use the word "it's not a railroad", but the arguments are all there and they're all fundamentally the same. This is being given as a defense against railroading, but it does nothing of the kind. It simply shifts the place where railroading may occur away from "DM response to player input" to "how the DM decides what she already knows".
But "just staying true to the character" can accurately describe either thing. That was @pemerton's point. This isn't a defense. It doesn't in any way forestall or interfere with railroading if you can just as easily be railroading as not railroading.

But you brought this up as a method that is supposed to not railroad. If it doesn't actually conflict with railroading in the slightest, where is the thing that gets in the way of that?
There must be some kind of decision procedure, because you have insisted that the GM is not being arbitrary, they aren't just doing whatever they feel like. "Realism" was given as the decision-procedure, but regardless of whether that is a useful standard (I still don't think it is, but I am leaving that aside), if realism is the decision-procedure, it cannot help the GM distinguish between doing the work to make option A realistic vs doing the work to make option B realistic. Hence, there must be something more to this decision procedure. It doesn't need to be "fixed, hard, universally applicable" anything. It just needs...something else beyond "realism", as almost anything can be made "realistic" by GM effort, doubly so when vast swathes of the world remain forever behind the black box.
So, to put this in (hopefully) plain, straightforward, relatively short terms. (I know I'm garbage at being concise.)

I don't understand what you mean by things like "realism", "objective"(/"objectivity" etc.), or the way that a fictional thing can cause or induce behavior. "Plausible" I'm unsure whether I do or don't understand, so it would be cool to get more about that. Especially "realism", because I have a lot of problems with its usage in topics like this. (I will explain more if asked, trying to keep simple.)

I do not understand how the DM decides what they already know. I understand that the DM basing decisions on "what the DM already knows" is important. Unfortunately, how the DM decides what they already know is of vital importance, yet left unexplained. I also don't understand what limits apply to how far the DM can "already know" things.

I don't see how "I had to do it because the setting made me do it" (paraphrased) and "It's what my character would do" differ. The former is called very good, and a shield against problems. Yet multiple people have said the latter is bad, or at least an excuse for bad player acts. I don't understand why it's good if it comes from a DM, but bad if it comes from a player.

I don't understand how the above terms together (e.g. "realism", "impartiality", "objectivity", etc.) are a procedure at all, let alone a DM decision procedure. From my own GM experience, I know one almost always has many options, all of which seem perfectly cromulent on what little I understand of your use of these terms. The only difference seems to be "DM effort", but that is never mentioned as part of the procedure. Indeed, sometimes it seems like it's outright not part of the procedure, as when someone (IIRC either you or AlViking?) said plate tectonics and rain shadows and ecology need to be factored in, which is a massively high DM effort!

By contrast, I do understand terms like "a persistent world" (a term widely used in video game design) or "illusionism" (the practice of deceiving players into thinking they have agency over the direction(s) the game moves in, when the truth is they are riding on rails concealed from them) or "consistency" (similar situations produce similar results, information changes for discernible reasons even if those reasons are not instantly obvious, past info is a good guide for future unknowns). I understand that a DM can be trying very hard to DM well, given the premise of the game they offer to run etc., though I also understand that a well-meaning DM can easily do wrong (by true accident, misunderstanding, lack of skill, flawed reasoning, or more) and an ill-willed DM can seem to do right or get lucky and simply not end up doing wrong.
 

In case it's of interest, here's an account of a "star-crossed lovers" episode from my Prince Valiant game; and there are bandits in the lead-up:
My group played a third session of Prince Valiant today.

The first session saw a group of knights get themselves into trouble in Kent. The second session saw the surviving two knights further north in Britain, and having hooked up with a squire and a travelling performer. At the end of that session they were ready to continue on their travels in search of fame and fortune after enjoying the hospitality of a noble lady whose son they had saved from unfair condmenation for sorcery.

The player of the performer was not at today's session, so we imagined that that character returned to Warwick while the knights set out with their squire. The players made checks to see how their PCs' hunting was going (they don't like spending money on provisions!) - and poor rolls lead to the conclusion that they were rather lean and hungry, all three of them suffering a 1-die penalty to Brawn until they could get a good feed.

I had decided to use The Wedding in Green episode from the Episode Book, and so told them that as they rode through the forest they could catch just the faintest hint of the smell of roasting meat. And then they heard a cry not far ahead, and the whinny of a startled horse. As they crested the rise they were expecting to see poachers vs gamekeepers, but instead saw bandits, led by a woman, trying to pull a cleric from his horse. They recognised the rider as one of the abbots who had participated in the sorcery trial from the last session.

Taking the view that a man of the cloth had to be protected from banditry, the younger knight (Sir Justin) couched his lance and charged down the slope. But the outlaw he was charging at was able to leap into the woods where he couldn't be followed (successful Agility vs Riding check). The leader then challenged him to dismount and fight her on foot, which he did - and he defeated her (choosing to disarm her and force her to her knees, rather than killing her). But then a bandit clocked him with a cudgel from behind and knocked him out. (The scenario gave the bandits two "fiat" effects - Knock An Opponent Senseless in Combat, and Hide. This was me using the first of those.)

In the meantime, the squire also decided to charge a bandit, but his player also failed a riding check sufficiently poorly to be tricked by a bandit into clotheslining himself on a tree branch, being knocked from his horse and also hors-de-combat.

That left the older knight, Sir Gerren (Sir Justin's father), who rode down to defend his son and protect the abbot. He slew two bandits from horseback and the remaining one fled. And he took their leader, Mariel, a prisoner. For this effort I awarded him a "Storyteller Certificate" - the system's version of a fate point.

Once the two unconscious PCs had regained consciousness and were ready to travel on (taking an hour or so in the fiction; automatic at the table), they headed off with the abbot towards his monastery - the house of St Sigobert. But at this point, I used the Hide ability, and the PCs (and abbot) were ambushed by the bandits while fording a stream. This was our first use of the archery rules, and the bandits turned out to roll somewhat poorly and so the PCs' armour protected them from 7 arrows. They then drew swords and engaged: the squire was pulled from his horse by one bandit, and Sir Gerren was facing two and having trouble, but Sir Justin defeated two, and then was able to aid his father, killing a third. The surviving bandits fled.

The players decided that it was better for their PCs to accept the abbot's invitation to accompany him to his monastery, rather than hunt bandits through the woods, and they did so. At the monastery, after some legal disputation which was inconclusive (tied checks of Sir Gerren's Presence vs the Abbot's), it was agreed that the monks would try Mariel for violating cannon law by attacking the abbot (the alternative view being that violence on the road was a logically prior violation of the king's law). She insisted that she was simply seeking a priest to officiate over her brother's wedding, and would have let the abbot go safely on his way afterwards (though was more coy about what she would have done with his money - "Everyone knows that you have to bring a gift to a wedding!"). Mariel was duly found guilty, and excommunicated, and then handed over to the knights as the temporal arm to deliver non-spiritual punishment. But they didn't have the gumption to punish her themselves, and so decided to take her to the nearest lord, whom - the abbot informed them - was Lord Murran of Castle Hill. In the meantime the squire helped with various manual tasks around the monastery, while Sir Justin helped care for some of the ill in the hospice, earning the sobriquet Sir Justin the Gentle.

I chose Catlie Hill as the destination because it would take the action closer to the coast, which fitted another scenario I wanted to use. (We are using the map on the inside back cover of the Pendragon volume that I got as part of the Prince Valiant Kickstarter). But the PCs' trip to Castle Hill gave me the chance to use a different scenario - the Rebellious Peasants in the main rulebook. The PCs were riding through a village surrounded by a low pallisade, having entered from the west, only to find the east gate shut against them and a band of peasants armed with pitchforks and crude spears behind them. Their reputation for favouring wealthy abbots over salt-of-the-earth outlaws had preceded them!

Sir Gerren tried to calm the peasants, but the rolled check failed (his Presence is not that strong and at that point he had not developed any Oratory). So his player decided to cash in his certificate to activate Arouse the Passion of a Crowd: his voice grew stronger and more sure, and he explained to the peasants the importance of mutuality and justice between all the king's subjects, which begins with free travel on the roads. The leader of the peasants acknowledged the truth of what he said, and apologised, explaining that it was their hunger that had driven them to such extremes. The PCs expressed sympathy, supped with them on some gruel, and rode on.

By this point all the PCs had earned enough fame (the system's analogue to XP) to take another skill rank each: the squire boosted his Arms skill, as did Sir Justin; Sir Gerren took a rank in Oratory.

Arriving at Castle Hill, the knights presented their prisoner to Lord Murran to pass judgement as to her punishment. Sir Justin indicated that he wanted to influence the Lord to a degree of leniency, and he succeeded in a Presence check to this effect: so she was sentenced to spend a lengthy period in the stocks.

Lord Murran then confirmed that the PCs were knights errant, and requested them to undertake a task for him - he wanted to learn why the Crowmaster who lives on an island in The Wash (a bay on the east coast) had declined to provide the Lord's Master of Hutches with crows when the Master had last visited him. The PCs (and players) were a bit curious about this, but Lord Murran explained the use of trained crows to carry messages and the like (as per the scenario A Wild Hunt) - "Like pigeons but stealthier!" (my own ad lib).

The PCs travelled to the coast without incident, and went to a village to see what they could learn about the Crowmaster and also to see about the use of a boat to travel to his island. But (again, as per the scenario) the villagers wouldn't open the village to them, fearing them to be brigands - and the Oratory checks made in attempts to explain that they were knights on a quest failed. So they instead found an old couple living in their hut on the coast (the players' idea, which it made sense to say "yes" to) and befriended them with the payment of a shilling. They learned that the Crowmaster has an apprentice, Engres; they were also fed the meat of a roasted bird more stringy than a typical gamebird - and with a successful Presence check the squire noticed some black feathers on the floor of the hut where the bird had been prepared for cooking. Apparently with drought in the area, the locals had resorted to shooting down the Crowmaster's crows for food! (This was the published scenario's framing, although I went with drought rather than the fowl-plague that it mentions.)

The old man took the PCs to the island in his coracle, where they met the Crowmaster. He wanted the villagers to stop shooting down his crows. He also wanted to know what had happened to his apprentice, Engres, whom he had sent to speak with the villagers some weeks ago. The PCs promised to do what they could, as these seemed to be necessary steps to getting crows for Lord Murran. (They also dined with the Crowmaster: at his command four crows - one at each corner - dropped the cloth onto the table, and then they carried over light tankards for the guests to drink from. There was some discussion about whether or not this was sorcery.)

Before nightfall they returned to the mainland, and then at night they returned to the village. The squire took off his armour and scaled the pallisade - and he could see the villagers were having some sort of feast (of crows, of course) in their main square. He had no trouble sneaking in and opening the gate, and the knights rode in. Once again protestations that they were not brigands went unheeded, and the villagers scattered to their homes. But when the knights sat down in the square, and made sure the roasting birds did not burn, the villagers slowly returned and accepted that these were not brigands here to steal their grain and birds, but rather were knights on a quest. Conversation revealed that tomorrow was the day of the village's annual Wild Hunt, to be led by the Huntmistress Tryamon. The PCs also found Engres in the village, apparently rather friendly with Tryamon. Fellowship checks were made to see who was able to stay sober and extract information from Engres, and the squire succeeded - he learned that Engres didn't really want to go back to the island, on account of his desire to stay with Tryamon.

The next day the PCs joined the villagers on their Wild Hunt. Sir Gerren, the squire and Tryamon each succeeded in finding a boar - in statistical terms quite fierce combatants. Sir Gerren successfully killed a boar, and so did Sir Justin (who took the one the squire had found). A commotion around the third boar drew the attention of the squire, who found that the Huntmistress had gone missing, leaving poorly-equipped and unskilled villagers trying to take down a boar on their own. He drew his sword and went in to help them - and though not too strong a combatant on his own (7-odd dice compared to 10+ for the knights), with bonus dice from the villagers he was able to defeat it without a single villager being gored. But that still left the mystery of the missing Huntmistress and, as it turned out, a missing Engres as well.

The PCs returned once again to the Crowmaster's isle, to report that with a stock of boar the villagers would no longer need to poach his crows; and that Engres was alive, and well, but missing since the morning's hunt. Their attempts to calm the Crowmaster at the loss of his apprentice ("He is like a son to me, who will carry on my work!"), and even to offer to find a new apprentice, all failed; but the Crowmaster was able to send his crows to hunt for Engres, and they found him heading southwest with his own flock (and Tryamon). The PCs returned to the mainland and road off in pursuit, but Tryamon was a stronger rider, and a 1 die bonus for her and Engres' passion offset the penalty for having two riders on the horse. (And I also rolled quite well, as well as having the larger pool.) So the PCs couldn't catch them.

They then came up with a new plan. First, they hired a tracker in a local village, who (with a succesful check) was able to lead them to the hamlet where Engres and Tryamon were in hiding. And then the PCs went to make them an offer. Engres sent his murder of crows to scare them off, and the squire's player failed a Presence check, but the two knights were not perturbed. The crows then swarmed around them, and Sir Gerren - not wanting to kill them - was not able to push through; but Sir Justin was (getting a bonus die for his greed, given his plan) and was able to make an offer to Engres: that he should return with the PCs to Castle Hill, where he could marry Tryamon and serve as a Crowmaster for Lord Murran, living in his castle. (The scenario says that "The Adventurers might convince the apprentice to return to the Crowmaster, or convince the parties to accept some other solution (or perhaps they have let the young lovers escape in the confusion)." I thought the idea my players came up with was a pretty good one!)

A rather easy Presence check was successful, and so Engres accepted. So all returned to Castle Hill, where Lord Murran was mightily pleased to be delivered not just trained crows but his own Crowmaster.

And at this point the squire had earned enough further fame to trigger another skill boost, taking Courtesie to facilitate his plan to woo Violette (a matter carrying over from our second session); and I thought they had all earned a Storyteller Certificate.

I was pleased with the amount of content we got through - bandits, a monastery and a trial, two villages with unhappy peasants, plenty of social interaction, and a nice player-driven twist in the resolution; and also that it turned out to have a surprising thematic unity - hungry peasants, weddings, and maintaining a judicious balance between upholding authority and allowing individuals to pursue their desires.
 

Then please

for goodness sake

when I ask for you (generic) to explain

please please please EXPLAIN.

Good examples (albeit mostly not directed to you specific):
So, to put this in (hopefully) plain, straightforward, relatively short terms. (I know I'm garbage at being concise.)

I don't understand what you mean by things like "realism", "objective"(/"objectivity" etc.), or the way that a fictional thing can cause or induce behavior. "Plausible" I'm unsure whether I do or don't understand, so it would be cool to get more about that. Especially "realism", because I have a lot of problems with its usage in topics like this. (I will explain more if asked, trying to keep simple.)

I do not understand how the DM decides what they already know. I understand that the DM basing decisions on "what the DM already knows" is important. Unfortunately, how the DM decides what they already know is of vital importance, yet left unexplained. I also don't understand what limits apply to how far the DM can "already know" things.

I don't see how "I had to do it because the setting made me do it" (paraphrased) and "It's what my character would do" differ. The former is called very good, and a shield against problems. Yet multiple people have said the latter is bad, or at least an excuse for bad player acts. I don't understand why it's good if it comes from a DM, but bad if it comes from a player.

I don't understand how the above terms together (e.g. "realism", "impartiality", "objectivity", etc.) are a procedure at all, let alone a DM decision procedure. From my own GM experience, I know one almost always has many options, all of which seem perfectly cromulent on what little I understand of your use of these terms. The only difference seems to be "DM effort", but that is never mentioned as part of the procedure. Indeed, sometimes it seems like it's outright not part of the procedure, as when someone (IIRC either you or AlViking?) said plate tectonics and rain shadows and ecology need to be factored in, which is a massively high DM effort!

By contrast, I do understand terms like "a persistent world" (a term widely used in video game design) or "illusionism" (the practice of deceiving players into thinking they have agency over the direction(s) the game moves in, when the truth is they are riding on rails concealed from them) or "consistency" (similar situations produce similar results, information changes for discernible reasons even if those reasons are not instantly obvious, past info is a good guide for future unknowns). I understand that a DM can be trying very hard to DM well, given the premise of the game they offer to run etc., though I also understand that a well-meaning DM can easily do wrong (by true accident, misunderstanding, lack of skill, flawed reasoning, or more) and an ill-willed DM can seem to do right or get lucky and simply not end up doing wrong.
Sorry but we have explained these to you. I think we just have to move on. I don’t think we are ever going to see eye to eye on this
 

And only six weeks later do the PCs realize they didn't change a thing: Snuffles was the real Emperor all along (the others were all just his lackeys, even including Mr. V. Goatee) and boy are those PCs in trouble now!!! :)

In my game the PCs (against ridiculous odds, but dice will be dice) took out the undead Emperor of what had under his centuries-long reign become a very Evil realm.

Result: a 5-way civil war erupted within weeks (most of the leaders being slave lords from the A-series modules) as what seemed like everybody and their little dog tried to fill the power vacuum. Several in-game years later that war is still going on, though now down to only three sides as two got wiped out.
See, here's my question. That's a plausible result. Sure. But, why a 5 way civil war? An equally plausible result is minor skirmishes as the 5 way groups shuffle for position that results in a stalemate that lasts for years. In other words, nothing really changes in the setting. But, that would be largely pretty boring to be honest. A 5 way civil war is a LOT more fun. So, did you choose the most plausible result or the one that would be the most fun and interesting.

Because if it was fun and interesting, then the whole notion of "choosing what makes the most logical sense" kinda goes out the window.
 

Then please

for goodness sake

when I ask for you (generic) to explain

please please please EXPLAIN.

Good examples (albeit mostly not directed to you specific):
So, to put this in (hopefully) plain, straightforward, relatively short terms. (I know I'm garbage at being concise.)

I don't understand what you mean by things like "realism", "objective"(/"objectivity" etc.), or the way that a fictional thing can cause or induce behavior. "Plausible" I'm unsure whether I do or don't understand, so it would be cool to get more about that. Especially "realism", because I have a lot of problems with its usage in topics like this. (I will explain more if asked, trying to keep simple.)

I do not understand how the DM decides what they already know. I understand that the DM basing decisions on "what the DM already knows" is important. Unfortunately, how the DM decides what they already know is of vital importance, yet left unexplained. I also don't understand what limits apply to how far the DM can "already know" things.

I don't see how "I had to do it because the setting made me do it" (paraphrased) and "It's what my character would do" differ. The former is called very good, and a shield against problems. Yet multiple people have said the latter is bad, or at least an excuse for bad player acts. I don't understand why it's good if it comes from a DM, but bad if it comes from a player.

I don't understand how the above terms together (e.g. "realism", "impartiality", "objectivity", etc.) are a procedure at all, let alone a DM decision procedure. From my own GM experience, I know one almost always has many options, all of which seem perfectly cromulent on what little I understand of your use of these terms. The only difference seems to be "DM effort", but that is never mentioned as part of the procedure. Indeed, sometimes it seems like it's outright not part of the procedure, as when someone (IIRC either you or AlViking?) said plate tectonics and rain shadows and ecology need to be factored in, which is a massively high DM effort!

By contrast, I do understand terms like "a persistent world" (a term widely used in video game design) or "illusionism" (the practice of deceiving players into thinking they have agency over the direction(s) the game moves in, when the truth is they are riding on rails concealed from them) or "consistency" (similar situations produce similar results, information changes for discernible reasons even if those reasons are not instantly obvious, past info is a good guide for future unknowns). I understand that a DM can be trying very hard to DM well, given the premise of the game they offer to run etc., though I also understand that a well-meaning DM can easily do wrong (by true accident, misunderstanding, lack of skill, flawed reasoning, or more) and an ill-willed DM can seem to do right or get lucky and simply not end up doing wrong.
At some point, if you still don't understand these things after a few thousand posts, you have to decide it's time to just accept that you aren't going to understand them. Demanding that people explain them to you one more time isn't likely to achieve anything but another demand for them to explained, yet again, a different way.
 

Sorry but we have explained these to you. I think we just have to move on. I don’t think we are ever going to see eye to eye on this
....

So...when I ask for clarification, you again tell me you simply aren't going to.

I tried. I tried extremely hard here. I tried to keep it straightforward, not overly flowery, direct. I asked, I thought, politely.

Your answer is to immediately tell me "no", without any further explanation beyond "we already did that"...which I have repeatedly said no, I haven't had anything explained to me any further than just...repeating actually or functionally identical words in actually or functionally identical patterns with the expectation that saying the same thing twice will communicate something saying it once did not.

Which means it's really, really hard to buy things like...
It is very hard to have a conversation if this is how you feel about what we say
Okay but try to understand, this isn't our impression at all of the conversation
...as actually being serious. This response does not even remotely come across as trying to understand my position, and it doesn't communicate even the slightest interest in understanding my impression of the conversation.

I'm genuinely sorry that this has led to people posting something rude or nasty on your blog, that's a crappy thing nobody should ever have done. But when I put a great deal of effort into asking clear, straightforward, (relatively) concise, specific questions to indicate where I don't (and do!) understand, the long and short of your answer is, "No, I'm not going to answer, because what you got is all you're getting."

How is this not exactly what I described above, where people on one side ask an endless litany of questions and then claim victory when the other side simply doesn't provide sufficiently deep, comprehensive, specific (but never ever any jargon!) answers, but when people on the other side ask any questions at all, they're met with, "You aren't getting any answers beyond what you've already gotten" with the expectation that that is perfectly acceptable?
 

At some point, if you still don't understand these things after a few thousand posts, you have to decide it's time to just accept that you aren't going to understand them. Demanding that people explain them to you one more time isn't likely to achieve anything but another demand for them to explained, yet again, a different way.
Because every time I've asked, I've been told I won't get any further answers than the ones I was already given!

Not one person I have asked about what "realism" means, for example, has even TRIED to answer. They've said either:

  • I already said, if you didn't get it that's your problem
  • Other people understood, so if you didn't, that's your problem
  • The answers you've gotten are all you're gong to get

Every single time!

Can you imagine if pemerton had said any of those things at any point in the thread? You'd all have pilloried him for it, and rightly so!
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top